From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S964917AbdJQLyu (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 17 Oct 2017 07:54:50 -0400
Received: from galahad.ideasonboard.com ([185.26.127.97]:60742 "EHLO
        galahad.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S933044AbdJQLys (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 17 Oct 2017 07:54:48 -0400
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>,
        Niklas =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F6derlund?= 
        <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se>,
        dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hiroyuki Yokoyama <hiroyuki.yokoyama.vx@renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: rcar-dmac: use DMATCRB when xxx_TO_MEM direction
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:55:06 +0300
Message-ID: <20662392.QIFALme4hY@avalon>
In-Reply-To: <87r2u27hx9.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
References: <87d15nmude.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <87tvyy7i7o.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <87r2u27hx9.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Morimoto-san,

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 03:18:49 EEST Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> Hi
> 
> > Thank you for your explanation.
> > My 1st patch focused to "transfer completed" count (= TCRB) for all case.
> > In any case, "completed" information should be used.
> > But in MEM_TO_DEV case, I thought if is OK if data was read from MEM
> > (= the data will be send to DEV automatically, I didn't care about
> > interruption) But yes, your opinion is correct I think.
> > 
> > I think MEM_TO_MEM should use TCRB.
> > I think logic is same as your MEM_TO_DEV explanation ?

TCRB is better for MEM_TO_MEM too in my opinion. When reporting residue 
information we should indicate how much data has been transferred, and that 
includes both read from source and written to destination.

> > Anyway, in all case I can use TCRB in v3 patch,
> > and it needs abouve explanation.
> 
> If so, I think v1 is enough... ?
> "transfer completed count is important for all case" is no doubt... ?

That's correct, but I don't think the explanation was detailed and clear 
enough. If it was Geert wouldn't have asked for a v2, and you wouldn't have 
agreed to his request :-)

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart